|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 103 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Mar-12-10 | | The Chess Express: Lets consider for a moment what the evolutionary theory of life means. Lets say a brand new population of primitive fish is created in the oceans. How do they go from the ocean to land? There is nothing in their habitat that would cause them to adapt to land. They can't breath the air. They can't eat the food. They can't get around on land. They die within minutes on land, so there would be no way for them to spend generations on land to evolve into land animals. If we came from monkeys there would probably be so called "missing links" alive and walking around today. The leap from monkey to man is too great, and if all the missing links died out then they would not be around to become humans. Lets say it took 100,000 generations to go from monkey to man. Are we to believe that all of the 99,999 previous generations have gone extinct? Not only would they have all had to go extinct but they would have had to have all been abducted by aliens since we can't find even a single fossilized skeleton. |
|
Mar-12-10
 | | OhioChessFan: <TCE: Lets say a brand new population of primitive fish is created in the oceans. How do they go from the ocean to land? There is nothing in their habitat that would cause them to adapt to land. They can't breath the air. They can't eat the food. They can't get around on land. They die within minutes on land, so there would be no way for them to spend generations on land to evolve into land animals.> I think that's a common sensical objection. Ever wonder why the evolutionists always work from fish to land animals? Is there something innately more advanced about a mammal than a fish? I don't see it. The reason the evolutionists posit that is because the marine animals appear first in the fossil record. Let me try another hypothesis. If there was a Great Flood, we'd generally expect marine life to appear first in the fossil record. I know that is maybe too simplistic to appeal to some, but I think it's as good a working hypothesis as any other. |
|
| Mar-12-10 | | PinnedPiece: <TCE>Marine biologists and paleontologists know of primitive lungfish in the archeological record with characteristics of tetrapods, able to move around in shallow waters using stubby fins, and use their swim bladder as an oxygen store....a necessary adaptation before further exploitation of shoreline food sources. You might want to study articles like this:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/... to get an idea of what paid scientists in that line of study think. <The strange thing that happened during the later parts of the Devonian period is that some of these fishlike animals evolved limbs with digits—fingers and toes. Over the ensuing 350 million years or so, these so-called tetrapods gradually evolved from their aquatic ancestry into walking terrestrial vertebrates> ...and when you can understand an article like this:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journa... <Here we describe a fossil sarcopterygian fish, Styloichthys changae gen. et sp. nov., that possesses an eyestalk and which exhibits the character combination expected in a stem group close to the last common ancestor of tetrapods and lungfish. Styloichthys from the Lower Devonian of China bridges the morphological gap between stem-group sarcopterygians (Psarolepis and Achoania)10 and basal tetrapodomorphs/basal dipnomorphs.> ...you will have graduated to the level of knowledge necessary to intelligently discuss fish to amphibian species in the fossil record. The people who find the clues are amazingly focused and deeply knowledgeable about the fossils that are there to be found. Evolutionary theory easily fits the field observations that better equipped species wipe out the earlier forms, supplanting them in the fossil record. This has happened in historical times--imported species wiping out the long-time inhabitants--in plant as well as animal kingdoms. The African Bee was introduced into South America in the 1950s and has replaced or transformed the native American honey bee everywhere it has traveled. http://www.bees-online.com/AfricanB... Similar and linking species get swallowed up or die off. In the hominid record, the most recent event that we know of like this was the disappearance of the Neanderthals, coincident with the apearance of the homo sapien sapiens in Europe and Asia. One of my favorite works of fiction is by William Golding (of "Lord of the FLies" fame) who wrote a story called "The Inheritors" about just that transition, which he based on new scientific information about our human historical record that scientists developed in the 1950s. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_In...(William_Golding) Note that Genesis song "Trick of the Tail" is a reference to that work. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&... . |
|
Mar-13-10
 | | SwitchingQuylthulg: <How do they go from the ocean to land? There is nothing in their habitat that would cause them to adapt to land. They can't breath the air. They can't eat the food. They can't get around on land. They die within minutes on land, so there would be no way for them to spend generations on land to evolve into land animals.> Yes, we don't have any fish capable of living on land for more than a couple of minutes, at least not today. We also don't have any mammals capable of living in water for more than a couple of minutes, or any amphibians. In other words, there's no evidence of transitional stages whatsoever, pretty much completely discrediting the theory of evolution. And yes, there's nothing on land that marine animals could possibly eat and similarly nothing in the sea for land-based lifeforms to consume. In this light, the recent problems of Iceland shouldn't come as a surprise. <Lets say it took 100,000 generations to go from monkey to man. Are we to believe that all of the 99,999 previous generations have gone extinct? Not only would they have all had to go extinct but they would have had to have all been abducted by aliens since we can't find even a single fossilized skeleton.> Right, those previous generations were immortal and thus couldn't possibly go extinct (they also couldn't vanish in some other way, like gradually becoming slightly different creatures, because such changes simply don't happen). And while it's certainly true such an apparently far-fetched idea would need plenty of evidence (such as remarkable similarity in the DNA of man and their supposed cousins or, as you say, some transitional-stage skeletons) to be worth anything, since the populations involved wouldn't have been all that big and the supposed skeletons would have had a million or so years to dispose of themselves, we probably wouldn't expect very <many> skeletons. Indeed, this consideration proves the dozens of skeletons and bits of skeleton that actually have been found are probably all fabricated. The lineage they point to is in any case way too neat to be real. |
|
Mar-13-10
| | SwitchingQuylthulg: <Is there something innately more advanced about a mammal than a fish? I don't see it.> That evolution is necessarily progress is one of the biggest misconceptions around (indeed, it is shared by many of its supporters). But it doesn't always work that way. One, scientists don't posit any great big guiding hand that ensures the "Fittest" always survives: it works out that way enough of the time to be a general trend, but sometimes the less fit get lucky. Two, a creature can be successful because it fits an open niche, not because it's particularly advanced. (Almost inevitably, the niche later closes or is stolen by somebody else.) I'm sure I don't have to type out that being the first non-plant, non-trivial (bacterium-type) lifeform on land was the all-time open niche. Imagine it - plenty of food, nobody to fight you for it, zero predators - it doesn't matter if you're a tortoise, a beetle or a one-eyed elephant, it doesn't matter if you're particularly progressed in any absolute terms, you're still going to be a huge success. Three, much of evolution is adapting to new environments, and environments change all the time. Imagine adapting to an ice age - it's a good thing, it certainly looks like progress, but when the ice age ends, undoing all the changes is suddenly the way to go. Evolution often happens sideways like that. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | YouRang: <OhioChessFan: <YouRang> I see no reason to dissect an affirmation of mostly philosophical viewpoint, so I will just thank you for your reply. I agree with some of it, disagree with some of it ...> I suppose it could be called 'philosophical', but it's based on real world observations. I would be interesting in knowing which part you think is wrong. Of course you don't have to if you would rather not. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | playground player: <You Rang> Why do I think Darwinism will be discredited? Actually, I think it already has been discredited. My grounds for thinking so are both theological and scientific--and political, in that it has to do with the way Darwinists have behaved. Come to think of it, I believe I have some semantic grounds, too. However, in fairness to both of us, I don't have time today to go into the particulars of my claim. Give me some breathing space, and I'll try to give you an answer you can sink your teeth into. As for the success of science--well, science doesn't have to be right to be successful. The Ptolemaic, geocentric cosmology was abundantly successful for centuries. And where government-contracted "scientists" failed to build a flying machine, the lowly Wright Brothers--bicycle mechanics by trade!--succeeded. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | playground player: Just to add my take on "transitional forms"--An ambulocetus is an ambulocetus is an ambulocetus... |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | The Chess Express: <PinnedPiece> Thanks for the information. I have to admit that lungfish poke a whole in my argument. I've been reading various sites from both sides including Stephan Gould, Richard Dawkins, and the apologists, and from what I gather the main problem with the fossil record is our lack of transitional fossils. Apparently we now have hundreds of millions of fossils, and we still have gaping wholes in the record. Gould explains this as a phenomena related to the theory that small isolated populations evolve more rapidly while the apologists say that even if that's true it would still take hundreds of thousands perhaps millions of years for them to evolve and so we should still see their fossils. Anyway, I have a bit more research to do. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> If you cared to present a contradiction, I expect I could address it off the top of my head, and surely could with a little research.> Lets start with two examples. Hell, and the fear of God. The scripture says that people get condemned to hell and are eternally lost, but then it says that they get back out of hell, and that all will be saved eventually. Likewise, there are places that say we should fear God and places that say we shouldn't. |
|
Mar-13-10
| | OhioChessFan: <TCE> I am not aware of any passage suggesting someone may get back out of hell. As far as fearing God, the context of any such statement is paramount. If you are out of covenant, you should fear God. If you are in covenant, you should not fear God, at least not to the same degree, or in the same way, as the person out of covenant. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | The Chess Express: Well, with the hell contradiction there are a great many places in scripture that I could cite. I'll give these because I feel that they should suffice. Psalm 16:9-11 Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope. <For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell;> neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. Thou wilt show me the path of life: in thy presence is fullness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore. Psalm 18:4-6 The sorrows of death encompassed me, and the floods of ungodly men made me afraid. The sorrows of hell encompassed me about: the snares of death prevented me. In my distress I called upon the Lord, and cried unto my God: he heard my voice out of his temple, and my cry came before him, even into his ears. Psalm 139:7-10 Wither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence? If I ascend up into heaven, thou art their: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art their. If I take the wings of the mourning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea; Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me. Psalm 86:13 For great is thy mercy toward me: and <thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest hell.> |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | The Chess Express: Apparently David got condemned to hell and then after he cried out to God he was released again. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | whatthefat: <and from what I gather the main problem with the fossil record is our lack of transitional fossils.> Well, you need to be careful about how you define a transitional form. Since evolution is constantly ongoing, technically every organism is a transitional form. <Apparently we now have hundreds of millions of fossils> I'm not sure of the exact figure, I know there are a few thousand dinosaur fossils, so that's probably in the ballpark. But in the scheme of things, that's still an incredibly limited number. Today, there are over 5000 mammalian species alone. It's not surprising to me that we haven't found a fossil corresponding to every ancestor along each phylogenetic branch. Especially if: (a) evolution does not happen at a uniform rate, and (b) fossils do not accumulate at a uniform rate. And if you look at humans for instance, where it seems that we departed from apes due to a fusion of two chromosomes, that's something that could happen in a single generation. Since then, 5% of our DNA has changed relative to chimpanzees, which would account for smaller adaptations along the way, but fundamental jumps can happen pretty quickly, as genetic engineering is showing most vividly. If you look at some of the experiments going on in genetics these days, it's incredible. It really smacks you in the face to see how robust genetic material is to manipulation and mutation. You would think if you just disabled a section of DNA, or inserted a whole new strand, or spliced DNA from two totally different organisms, the whole system would just break down. At least, that would be my intuitive feeling. But more often than not, the result is something viable. Not always healthy, but viable. And it's shockingly effective. Want to take a feature of one organism and give it to another? Maybe you want to make an organism fluoresce? Or maybe you just want one of their organs to fluoresce? Sure, just use a viral vector to insert the relevant DNA in the right spot, and it will only be expressed where you want it to be. More than anything, these kind of experiments demonstrate for me the viability of evolution via simple mutations and hybridization. Reading the literature these days, I am constantly gobsmacked. |
|
| Mar-13-10 | | The Chess Express: Again with the whole fear issue there are plenty of contradictions. Here is one in the very same chapter. Mary tells us to fear God.
Luke 1:50 His mercy extends to those who fear him ... Zechariah tells us not to.
Luke 1:74 to rescue us from the hand of our enemies, and to enable us to serve him without fear. |
|
Mar-14-10
| | OhioChessFan: Psalms is primarily a book of poetry. As David was alive while making those statements, I think it's clear he was speaking metaphorically. We use such language all the time, particularly in sports. "That team came back from the dead." "They really pulled one out of the fire." "He's really come back to life." I think any reasonable person knows that: The team wasn't really dead. They weren't really in some sort of fire. He wasn't really dead. And I think a reasonable assessment of David's comments about hell, since he was still alive, are just as clearly figures of speech. The Psalms 16 passage is cited in Acts 2:25-27 as a prophecy of Jesus in hades, not hell, and show some of the nuances of language. Luke 1:74 is not saying they should not fear God, but instead should not fear their enemies The context is crystal clear. Luke 1:71 says "That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us; " and in the same way 1:74 says "That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,". That is, we need not fear our enemies while serving God. I see no need to appeal beyond the immediate context to show that "fear" in this passage references "enemies" and not "God". I realize there are other passages that would more directly reference fearing God. I would appeal to the fact that there is more than one sense of "fear", and the context will help see which sense that might be. |
|
Mar-14-10
| | OhioChessFan: On a related note, anyone hear about The Amazing 150 Million Year Old Squid Ink? |
|
| Mar-14-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Luke 1:74 is not saying they should not fear God, but instead should not fear their enemies.> I see now that you are probably right about that context. I'll give a better example. Luke 1:50 His mercy extends to those who fear him ... Apparently keeping the covenant means to fear God. Here we see a direct contradiction of that. According to scripture if we don't love we don't know God or Jesus. I John 4:8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. And it is impossible to love God if we fear him.
I John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear has torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love. Again, a contradiction. This point is important because Christianity is basically a fear based religion. Christians routinely ask questions like "Are you saved?" and "What if your wrong?". Basically, the threat is that if people don't believe the way they believe they burn in hell forever. Is that what you believe? |
|
| Mar-14-10 | | The Chess Express: <<<<<OhioChessFan>>>> Psalms is primarily a book of poetry. As David was alive while making those statements, I think it's clear he was speaking metaphorically.> The spiritual interpretation of that is we all live many lives. David reached the point were he remembered his past lives and what happened in between them. The scripture tells us that God knew us long before we were born. Here are some more passages that support that interpretation. <1 Peter 3:18-20> For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the spirit, through which also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. This is confirmation of Jesus' promise recorded in John 12:32 to draw all people to himself after leaving earth. Even in hell, in the spirit world, sinners are released from hell. This is pretty straight forward since the folks in Noah's time had died a long time ago. It should be noted that hell is referred to as a prison. Prisons are designed to hold people until their debt is repaid. It is also noteworthy that Jesus is apparently not affected by time. Here is a passage where Jesus himself says the exact same thing in a parable. <Matt 18:34-35> In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart. So once sinners repay their debt they are released from hell. Even in those days not forgiving people from the heart was not a crime, and Jesus specifically says that it is what God will do not the authorities. Here's another. <Job 33:29-30> Lo, all these things worketh God oftentimes with man, 30 To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. According to the scripture "the pit" is hell, so again we see that God routinely brings people back from hell. This is just further confirmation of what David was saying. Here are more passages that say essentially the same thing. <Philippians 2:9-11> Therefore God exalted him to the highest place and gave him the name that is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. <Psalm 106:1> PRAISE YE the Lord. O give thanks unto the Lord; for he is good: for his mercy endureth forever. |
|
| Mar-14-10 | | The Chess Express: To be forthcoming I happen to believe that there is no hell other than the physical universe. My point is only that the scripture is as conflicted as the minds that wrote it. Remember that Jesus never wrote anything. |
|
| Mar-14-10 | | kormier: <<The Chess Express>> <<OhioChessFan>> hi guys, love + love = is(produce) paradise now, i am saved, my soul is saved(to be keap white) my spirit is sound enough( wise, advice, science, inteligence, force(strong+) piety(praise+), fear of (respect+) God, my body need adequate care(i'm getting to it(eat, sleap, work) tks lord for our Mother, by, by |
|
| Mar-14-10 | | kormier: Grace = Love.....tks |
|
| Mar-14-10 | | The Chess Express: <kormier> What happens to those who are not saved the way you are? |
|
Mar-14-10
| | OhioChessFan: <TCE: I John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear has torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.> Here's the NIV for that passage. I'll go back to verse 17 to show the context: <In this way, love is made complete among us so that we will have confidence on the day of judgment, because in this world we are like him. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. > That's speaking of Christians at the Judgment Scene. They in fact should have no fear, IF they are in the love of God.
In any case, a working definition of a contradiction is that something can not both be and not be, in the same way, at the same time. I think "in the same way" is the issue that needs to be considered. Yes, in ONE way, we do need to fear God. In a DIFFERENT way, no, we need not fear God. The Bible addresses different ways of fearing God, and turning to one passage with one context and then to another with a different context is dulling the distinction. <Christians routinely ask questions like "Are you saved?" and "What if your wrong?". Basically, the threat is that if people don't believe the way they believe they burn in hell forever. Is that what you believe?> I will ask people if they are saved. I rarely ask "What if you're wrong?" I think Pascal's Wager is a relatively weak argument to make, though I see many professing Christians return to it over and over. I believe that anyone who has sinned, and has not been forgiven, is in danger of hell forever. |
|
Mar-14-10
| | OhioChessFan: <TCE: The spiritual interpretation of that is we all live many lives. David reached the point were he remembered his past lives and what happened in between them. > Again,Psalms is a book of poetry. I think forcing a literal interpretation onto what is clearly poetic language is a guarantee of misinterpretation. Here's a few more things David said in Psalms:
Ps. 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies. Do you really think David literally means wicked people are speaking the moment they are born? I don't. Ps. 91:2-4 I will say of the LORD, [He is] my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust. Surely he shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, [and] from the noisome pestilence. He shall cover thee with his feathers, and under his wings shalt thou trust: his truth [shall be thy] shield and buckler. Do you really think David means to say God is literally a bird? I don't. Some of the other passages you cite are just as clearly poetic. Psalms and Job are among the poetic books in the Bible. I could point to many more examples in Psalms, and a lot in Job that show there is no question they are using figurative language. The passage in Matthew is a reference to a parable, a story Jesus told to make a point. I think trying to use a parable to suggest a literal interpretation of the lesson would be akin to us today reading Aesop's fables and concluding that Aesop was so ignorant he thought animals could speak.
I understand the passage in Phillippians to be discussing the Judgment Scene.
The passage in 1 Peter 3 is a very hard passage to understand. I will start a new post to address it. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 103 OF 849 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
rreusser/...